halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Incomplete Work Template
Hey there everyone. I would like to suggest an idea to help with the quality around here. Basically I would like to call it the: IW template, Incomplete Work template. Basically it will be used to mark pages that haven't been edited in a long time. If any page has the "Under Construction" template on it and it hasn't been edited on here for like two months, then mark it with this template. I will add: "Category:Incomplete Work" to it so that the Fanon would show up in a category. Then we can review them and take the needed actions to what we should do about the incomplete work. I am about to create a template for this, so ny suggestions on this? Thanks, H*bad (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Template Comments I'd first like to point out that if we don't delete articles that break rules 3 and 4, why would we delete work that is incomplete? Being incomplete isn't even against the rules! I feel like the Under Construction template, which has been around since before the Property template and the NCF template, fills the role of informing others that the article is not complete perfectly well without unnecessary threats to delete articles for arbitrary reasons I don't fully understand. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 04:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Alright, here allow me to just explain what its about. Basically we have a lot of articles on here, that you will admit, haven't been added onto with the Under Construction template on it. Perhaps a stricter rule on articles. If we get too lenient we will have a lot of articles yes, but they will be stubs forever. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC) But what's wrong with being a stub? I mean, I understand that it lowers to quality of the article and thus the overall site, but making a rule that requires articles to be "complete" is too ambiguous. I mean, what, do we impose a required word minimum? It just isn't the type of rule that would be practical to enforce. Furthermore, I still don't see the point in deleting. Our policy is to move articles to user namespace, the only exception being articles created by IP addresses with no apparent author. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC) How's this? I've expanded on H*Bad's idea by making it match the universal theme and i've addressed Rot's deletion issues. Hope you like it: Cya, THis seems very pointless to me; we already have the Under Construction template, no need to clone it. --'User talk:Lordofmonsterisland ' 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :As per LOMI, the UC template works better than the IW template. Also, its a hassle needing to categorize everything differently...Little_Missy - 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ::Is it so much of a problem to have everything organized so that the site will be more appealing to users? If you clean your room, then you can find stuff better. And as such, if we organize the wiki, then we can find stuff easier, making it a better environment for everyone. Thats just what I believe, but I think it would be nice to pick up some of the trash. Also I like Parkstar's idea. It does the same sort of thing, except the user can come back and edit the page and put it on the main space. I think there should be a bit of a rule on how long something can be incomplete. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Not necessarily true. If we overcomplicate, things will become tedious. If you want to help categorize things, add a category to the UC template. And I am still against any sort of rule prohibiting "stubs". The term is far too vague for us to make a rule against it! :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 02:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Ah, well I talked to Ajax 013 today and he said that instead of just simply have the Under Construction Template add the category of Under Construction on all of the pages. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) I think that we should enforce new rules, just enforce this template. Banning stubs is impossible. However this is what i propose: We put this on a page, which has been long forgotten but also tell the author. If the author replies and says, oh i can't finish it until something else because i don't want to ruin a suprise. Or in my case a lot of the CN stuff is on hold because of the Necros. So we then we take that away and leave it with just the under construction. However if the author doesn't get back in like a month or two then we start sending an e-mail instead, directly to them. If this doesn't work and no-one is prepared to adopt it then it is namespaced. So by doing it this way, it isn't unfair but it still makes sure we through out the rubbish. You may find it being used in the minority, but isn't the unrealism (which i will get back to soon) simular. It's needed but not vastly. This template will work and it will help. If you don't like it then you don't have to help, me and H*Bad could manage it ourselves! It's a great idea and i think it needs to be followed through. This isn't under construction. This is the next step from under construction, as unrealism was from NCF. They may be small but they're needed. Thanks for understanding. Regards, :Parkster, everyone here has agreed to just insert an additional category in the UC template.Little_Missy - 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC) The concept of making stubs against the rules is simply too ambiguous to be enforced. Whose say should it be that an article isn't long enough? Some minds aren't creative enough to make scrawling articles like some of the others here. Should they be punished for that? I don't think so. There is no way except a case-by-case call to actually enforce this. So I'll make you a deal. I'll be willing to consider this whole thing if between you and H*bad, you guys go through and read every article, marking the ones with this template that you think it would apply to. If you manage to do that, I will consider. Mind you, I will have no part in maintaining this system (I have enough on my hands simply with NCF). Furthermore, I'd just like to point out that templates like Unrealism aren't "necessary evolutions" of existing templates, as you put them, but rather just unnecessarily overcomplicate things, since the things like unrealism and even god modding basically fall under NCF anyway. We don't need five templates when one can do the job. Sure, the five are more specific, but that's why the NCF template directs users to the discussion page to see why. In tandem with a discussion entry as to why the template was used, the NCF is far more specialized than any ten templates could ever be without the discussion entry, and is on equal footing with the ten if discussion entries are used (thus still rendering the ten as obsolete). :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 23:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Well that will be simple enough! HAHA. Me and The Parkster will be doing just that. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Mind you, I said I'd consider changing my mind, but if you both really do go through all 7.5 thousand articles to check for length and mark them all with your little template, at the very least, I'll be seriously impressed. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 05:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I'd be impressed as well. I'd be unable to help, as I'm currently undergoing the daunting task of eliminating all the wanted page links we've got here. I've probably cleaned up 300 and I still can't see past the 1000 links left. --'User talk:Lordofmonsterisland ' 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Well I believe that I ought to get started then huh? Rot, what would you say the rules are of this "challenge"? How many people can I have helping me, other then The parkster? Thanks, H*bad (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC) As many as are willing to help, I suppose. Once you're done marking, you and whoever is helping will be in charge of meeting out the conditions Parkster outlined, messaging and later emailing authors whose articles are marked with your template. I still don't feel that it is justified to declare certain articles as "not long enough", but I'm willing to give you guys a chance here. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 01:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Well by not long enough, we mean any page that has the Under Construction template and hasn't been edited in like 2 months... Thanks, H*bad (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC) For the longest time, my Halo: Galaxy article had the UC template on it, and it went several months without being edited. However, it was also single-handedly longer than most other articles on the site. I really hope that that isn't your only criteria, because, first of all, there are many many many articles without the UC template that would be considered "stubs", and secondly, the UC template doesn't necessarily mean the article is a stub, but rather than the article isn't finished yet. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 04:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I find it a very bad idea to do it by length; I've just created a horde of new articles for Ajax's Necros project that are little more than a paragraph long and they're completed. --'User talk:Lordofmonsterisland ' 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Ah! Another issue that I forgot to add onto the description, yes if the article is already really long, then we won't add it. Sorry I was thinking about that but I never did quiet add it. Thanks, H*bad (talk) Ummm... that's gonna be epic. I was saying that it should be enforced to articles, which are small unfinished stubs. That was the criteria i was trying to outline. I'll help though! Correct, which is what we are going to do. I am going to start next week, whether I have any help. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Define "unfinished". Hell, define "small". That's the fundamental problem with this whole idea. My idea of small and your idea of small are two separate things. And Parkster's idea of small is probably different than either of ours. We'd have to draw the line somewhere, and I really don't want to think that we intend for users to be counting words before posting articles, because they are afraid of some damned new rule. And how do we know when an article is unfinished verse finished? We can't read the author's mind. Only the author knows if his article is finished or not. And H*bad, there's a slight problem with your plan to just not put the template on long articles: you won't know the length of the articles until you read them. That isn't going to reduce the payload at all. When you declare that you are done, if I find two or three that look like they are appropriate for this template that aren't marked, I won't even consider changing my mind. Sound too harsh? Well, it should, because the purpose of this hypothetical challenge wasn't for you to race off, find some loophole that allows you to do what I had previously deemed impossible, and then force me to change my mind. Rather, it was to express that I am not going to change my mind for obvious reasons: the concept of judging an article as "too small" or "unfinished" is way to abstract and vague for a rule. So you probably shouldn't waste your time, because I covered my bases when I said I'd consider. I'll consider, but the answer is still no, and it isn't because I don't want to deal with the system, it is because the system is inherently flawed. I can think and mull over it as long as you'd like, but the answer isn't going to change. A rule requiring articles to be x words long is just way to strict for my taste. I'm not sure how the other admins feel, but I'd be willing to bet most of them feel the same. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 08:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC) The End Well you'll be glad to hear that this isn't working and i don't plan to carry it on pointlessly, especially now H*Bad is gone >:( So there's no point in doing this. It was a bit rediculous to think there was a point to be honest! :P Anywayz, i'll carry on with life and other stuff too. Thanks for knocking some sense into me!